Please cut and paste new entries to the bottom of this page, creating a new monthly archive (by closing date) when necessary.

Macroxiphus sp cricket

Reason

Looks like an ant? Look again. A 4mm katydid mimicking an ant, because ants are of the most feared insects. Good quality and EV. For such a small subject, DOF is also quite good.

Articles this image appears in

Mimicry, Tettigoniidae, Macroxiphus

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 08:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though there's a little bit of blur on the antennae but I don't think it can be helped at all and it doesn't detract from the EV.Terri G (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Very interesting. I recommend you crop a bit off the left, to center the subject. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Man, you have some awesome insect photos. and again, it could do with a crop from the left. still an awesome photo - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Got the wow factor, and good EV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support: All the 6 legs and both antennae are out of focus. I still support because of 'wow' it gives to me. - DSachan (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Noooo, please don't crop it! It's perfect just as it is. What a brilliant capture of bizarre behaviour in the animal kingdom, :-) Maedin\^talk 20:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support High EV. Lycaon (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Less than a megapixel on the subject. Noodle snacks (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent point... was thinking that myself. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A megapixel is not the min requirement. The environment the insect is captured in has EV as well. --Muhammad(talk) 03:42, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it isn't, but its still pretty small. You'd still be able to gather that this was a leaf with a tighter image. Noodle snacks (talk) 03:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • A tighter crop I made was around 1000px². --Muhammad(talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose A little too much blur and too little detail for my tastes. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - As above. I don't like the angle and composition either. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the most encyclopedic angle as it clearly shows how the katydid resembles the ant and how it is also slightly structurally different. --Muhammad(talk) 04:42, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per nom. Size is OK by me. DOF issues are a bit distracting, but my main concern is no full species ID. --jjron (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is small in the image, but image is of high quality and while DOF is an issue, head and thorax (and hind legs) are almost entirely in focus. Supports offer good arguments. Consensus is nearly met (depending on how you define "weak" in numbers). Therefore: Promoted Image:Macroxiphus sp cricket.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Horseshoes, Yuma

Reason

The young boys' eyes captivated me. And also: encyclopedic picture of a game of horseshoes at a field day in Yuma, Arizona in 1942. And no, the horizon is not straight. I'm assuming that Russell Lee knew what he was doing when he shot this for the FSA. Restoration included dust and scratchs and dealing with a particularly nastily faded original.

Articles this image appears in

Horseshoes, Field day

Creator

Russell Lee, photographer. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice restoration, but not a whole lot of EV for horseshoes or field day (as it is easily reproducible). Also, no wow factor. Kaldari (talk) 02:10, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wasn't aware that the wow factor was a requirement, sorry. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 02:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has to "illustrates the subject in a compelling way". Since nothing is historically unique about this photo (someone could easily recreate it today), why should we settle for a drab, grainy, black and white photo to illustrate the article? Kaldari (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's an illustration of the game of horseshoes in the 1940s. I understand the game went through a number of changes, including the height of the thingamajig sticking out of the ground (can you tell I'm not an expert? :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I like the image and it's historically significant, but at the moment its encyclopaedic use doesn't meet requirements. Its use in horseshoe is barely relevant (they're holding horseshoes, so what? How does this actually illustrate a horseshoe or its use? What are they doing with them?), and I can't immediately see its relevance to field day. Okay, I need to learn to read, scrap that - I just realised the difference between horseshoe and horseshoes. Now that is relevant - it shows the age of the game, and the culture and environment in which it was played. However I still think we can squeeze a bit more EV out of this as an example of Lee's work and the material that the FSA's depression photography program gathered around this time (with reference to Walker Evans, Dorothea Lange etc.) —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The EV for horseshoes is clear to me. (I'm American; this game is well known in the United States). Horizon doesn't bother me either: perhaps they were on an incline (the fenceposts on the left hand side and the posture of the two men are pretty close to vertical.) Spikebrennan (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support -- not sure I like the tilted angle, and the photo looks a bit fuzzy, but it seems to meet our requirements for a featured picture. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:36, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose A good restoration effort, but I don't think the EV is strong enough. Fletcher (talk) 21:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support - Best image for subjects illustrated, but might be better as a valued picture. Ceranthor 13:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Limited EV since it only shows half the game. We really need to see what he's aiming at. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's aiming at a small metal post, similar to the one at his feet. I don't see how you could really take a good photograph that includes the players and the target post-- either you're going to have depth of field issues, or a lot of uninteresting space in the middle. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Monument, Edinburgh

Reason

Fulfils criteria for featured picture; shows high level of detail; is interesting; is aesthetically pleasing

Articles this image appears in

Edinburgh, Scott Monument

Creator

George Gastin

• Support as nominator --Donama (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. While it's a striking photograph, it doesn't tell me anything about the monument. I had to go to the page to have any idea what the photograph was representing. In short, it's great picture, a terrible illustration. Also, most of the picture is out of focus, and the HDR looks excessive. Mostlyharmless (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I actually like the composition, but it's the focus that really irks me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might like it, but you must admit the composition makes it virtually impossible to get any real information from it, which is kinda important! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right; I never said I would have supported, but it is cool nonetheless. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:44, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Also, small and noisy --Muhammad(talk) 05:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too small, HDR is excessive (making the monument itself look as if it's been inexpertly cut out and placed on a fake sky), is a confusing way to illustrate the subject in question. Quite nice artistically, but fails on encyclopaedic use. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose awkward composition. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose artistic, not encyclopaedic --Stephen 04:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Seems a bit out-of focus, also, it is not large and doesn't show the monument very clearly. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bit out of focus? Significantly... I really don't think it should even illustrate the article at all.. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:00, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral: I love this photo. Please try and do some work on it, to bring it out more. The EV is low with this one, but its a great image nonetheless. Synergy 00:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief

Reason

Quite encyclopedic image of ethnographer Frances Densmore in the actual process of preserving Native American language and culture. The picture shows Densmore with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot chief she was recording for the Bureau of American Ethnology.

Articles this image appears in

Blackfoot, Frances Densmore, Bureau of American Ethnology, Ethnomusicology

Creator

Unknown photographer, part of the Library of Congress' National Photo Company Collection. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Very nice restoration, and high EV. I'm curious: did Mountain Chief put on his regalia to make the sound recording because it was a special occasion, or were those the clothes that he was going to wear that day anyway? Spikebrennan (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I remember seeing this image in a National Geographic magazine...does anyone know which? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google to the rescue[1]! I came across the picture completely by accident on the Library of Congress site, but apparently, in the words of National Geographic[2]:

This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era.

He's most probably not listening, of course: Densmore is recording onto a wax cylinder. The picture was published in Mickey Hart, K.M. Kostyal, Songcatchers: In Search of the World's Music, National Geographic, 2003 (ISBN 079224107X). Weird restoration on the NG site, by the way. :D -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 17:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Except this now raises an issue with accuracy - see Criterion 6. NatGeo are saying they're listening, the image page description, presumably generated from the LoC notes, are saying they're recording. I've had issues with the accuracy of LoC information before (see the recent Heckler nom below for one example), and would be inclined to believe NatGeo. Is there a way to distinguish whether this is a recording or listening device (and how much does that then verge on OR)? --jjron (talk) 07:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong. But neither LoC nor NatGeo are wrong: Densmore was most probably "recording Mountain Chief", i.e. Mountain Chief was there to be recorded, had been recorded or was about to be recorded (the date of the photo coincides with recordings of Mountain Chief[3]). This picture however is not of a recording: the listening horn is on the device.

This photo, taken in Washington, D.C., reflects the special aims and conditions not of the "oral poetry act" but rather of what might be called the "photography act." For the benefit of the photographer and posterity, Mountain Chief has donned his ceremonial native dress (his own?). At his side are emblems of the vanishing Native American culture that Densmore was doing her best to document. The collector adopts a non-assuming pose, eyes lowered on the machine. Mountain Chief gestures as if declaiming, although any sound that he is uttering at this moment would not be registered, for he is seated before the listening horn of the machine, not the recording horn. [4]

-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You do realise it's a different picture? Admittedly the device looks to be the same, but accuracy and EV are sliding IMO. And shouldn't captions and image page be changed if it's not a recording? (Not to mention filename, etc). --jjron (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That's overstating the case a bit. It's a series of pictures taken on the same day. I found at least one picture in the series (this one) where Densmore has her eyes lowered on the machine, but at least one other (the one in the link above) doesn't. Some have Mountain Chief gesturing (cf. link above), some don't (cf. this image). I can't rename the picture, but I've modified the caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not overstating anything. I don't know how you know that these images were taken on the same day - I can see no date associated with the one at [5], certainly the background is completely different, the chair the chief is on is different, and while that image is pretty low res, either his pants are different or he's got something hanging over his knee, and Densmore's hair also looks to be different. Regardless, there seems to be a lot of guessing going on here from all parties. You even accidentally misquoted the image caption from the above link which in fact says "...Mountain Chief has donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)..." - so even that caption is guessing at what's going on, and they're unsure whether the ceremonial dress is genuine, i.e., it might not even be his. BTW you can get files renamed I believe, or upload under a new name and request a deletion. --jjron (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Urgh. I really should check things before I reply. I was wrong (again), but the sources can be reconciled, and both the proposed caption and the original reason is correct. You can't be a 100% sure, I agree. But then again, you can't be sure of *anything*. Al you can go by is the sources. Here's a couple of different versions of the images I found:
  1. LoC: "Piegan Indian, Mountain Chief, having his voice recorded by ethnologist Frances Densmore", dated "1916" [6] (scanned photographic print) and "Blackfoot Chief, Mountain Chief making phonographic record at Smithsonian, 2/9/1916" [7] (scanned glass negative)
  2. LoC: "Frances Densmore using wax cylinder phonograph to record Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian", dated "1916" [8]. Location is different: stone wall and stairs in background instead of dark cloth screen. Densmore is dressed the same but looks dark-haired, not gray; Mountain Chief is dressed differently.
  3. Niles, Homo Narrans, 1999: "Frances Densmore, collector, with Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot Tribe, 1906. [...] donned ceremonial dress (his own, or someone else's?)" [9]. Dated 1906 in caption. Probably same session but slightly different from (2): same paraphernalia in front of Mountain Chief but Densmore looks up, not down. (Note that the missing "or someone else's" in my quotation above was not an accidental misquote: I didn't feel like retyping everything and copy-pasted from [10])
  4. NatGeo: "This 1916 image of Frances Densmore and Blackfoot leader Mountain Chief listening to a cylinder recording has become a symbol of the early songcatcher era." [11] = retouched version of (1)
  5. Smithsonian: CD cover, "Healing Songs of the American Indian" [12] = cropped version of (2)
  6. Nettl and Bohlman, Comparative Musicology and Anthropology of Music, 1991: "Frances Densmore, ethnomudicologist, with Mountain Chief, a Blackfoot Indian, who is interpreting in sign language a song being played on a phonograph" [13] = version of (3), but dated 1916
  7. Becker, Selling tradition, 1998: "Ethnomusicologist Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief of the Blackfoot tribe listen to a cylinder recording in 1906. [...] This photograph was taken outside the Smithsonian in Washington." [14] = version of (3)
  8. Adolf Hungry-Wolf, The Blackfoot Papers: "Mountain Chief, having some of his songs recorded on wax cylinders [...] during a visit he made to Washington, D.C. around 1915. He has on his intertribal outfit, with Sioux headdress and fringed backskin suit" [15] dated around 1915 = version of (1)

There are more sources on Google Book Search. With a heavy dose of Occam's razor: there were two photo sessions, one in 1906 (at least once misreported as 1916) and one ca. 1916 (sources say 1914, ca. 1915, 1916). Both were staged. The sources seem to agree that Mountain Chief is not in the process of being recorded but rather listening, in both photos. Mountain Chief was however recorded by Frances Densmore: all sources agree that he was. The more recent photo (1) is dated quite precisely "2/9/1916" at the LoC; there is a recording of Mountain Chief dated quite precisely 2/16/1916 [16].

Conclusions? This picture is beyond any reasonable doubt a picture of Frances Densmore and Mountain Chief. According to the sources, the picture was taken in February 1916; Frances Densmore recorded Mountain Chief; recordings of Mountain Chief in February 1916 survive. "Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief" is a reasonable image name; "Frances Densmore at the Smithsonian Institution in 1916 where she was recording Blackfoot chief Mountain Chief for the Bureau of American Ethnology. In this picture, Mountain Chief is listening to a recording." is a reasonable image caption. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 19:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 04:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Nice one - conveys an interesting story. Would be interested to know what they were actually recording. One could complain about the awkward arrangement with the subjects against the background screen, but I find it acceptable. --jjron (talk) 06:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral per issues raised in above discussion. I do like the photo, but accuracy and EV appear compromised. Perhaps needs to be suspended pending clarification, which may or may not be possible. --jjron (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Excellent restored photo. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 13:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. It is kind of an awkward looking composition, but that also helps make it interesting. Fletcher (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. GerardM (talk) 11:51, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great restoration, too. Xavexgoem (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent restoration, and very high EV. Amazing. Synergy 00:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation about the caption is legitimate, but easily solved by making the caption more vague. I also quoted both captions at the Commons image page. When two very trustworthy sources disagree, might as well just make it vague because Wikipedians can't determine which is right. Otherwise, this is has obvious support. Promoted Image:Frances Densmore recording Mountain Chief2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. There's a fine solution for lack of EV - just make the supposed information in captions etc vaguer! :-) --jjron (talk) 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo shows a RECORDING session. If nothing else, the recording attachment (special arm and horn) clearly visible proves it. The tonearm and horn for listening on this type of machine look very different. We can even determine the exact moment of the photo shoot: Densmore has just started the machine and is lowering the recorder onto the blank wax - during actual recording OR playback her hand would have not been touching the tonearm! - and Mountain Chief is visibly concentrating, ready to launch his song or speech as soon as she gives the sign that the phonograph is running.

Here's a period illustration (from the original user's manual of the Edison machine) showing the _recording_ arm and horn: https://www.technogallerie.com/wp-content/uploads/1a-23.jpg

and here's a photo of Densmore's machine set up for playback. Note how the much larger playback horn sits on top of the back bracket, and there is an angled tonearm with the reproducer hanging vertically over the cylinder, while the recorder is placed at an oblique angle with the horn directly protruding from it. https://scontent.flej1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t39.30808-6/307684032_1148534619202358_3479030545063488219_n.jpg?_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=dbeb18&_nc_ohc=ntMGnpdaDr8AX8VQ7EH&_nc_oc=AQknQRQNgEshUbqauJN95IgPwkl8yZq0n_2Zb4tZZKNG9DEYrF4xRp6xucMehMRFYLQ&_nc_ht=scontent.flej1-1.fna&oh=00_AT9GcCAdPiPjj3aGjC36HYm1pn6PkI0xMCSdodUGy4Za-A&oe=6332B7A7

One obvious nonsense in the Smithsonian description is of course that he "interprets a song in Plains Indian sign language". One could record SIGN LANGUAGE on a movie camera I suppose, but we have an AUDIO recording session here so he must be reciting or singing. At any rate, "interpreting" is clearly not used in the sense of "translating" or "explaining", but means "performing" (like a pianist "interprets" a Chopin piece by playing it, and an actor "interprets" a role by speaking the words. 91.65.175.94 (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dresden

Reason

The German Wikimedia chapter made an announcement yesterday that the University of Dresden library has agreed to release 250,000 images from its collection directly to Wikimedia Commons. This restoration is a way of saying thank you: a high resolution view of the city before very extensive damage during World War II. Here's hoping it passes the exacting standards of FPC. Restored version of Image:Dresden photochrom.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Bombing of Dresden in World War II, Dresden

Creator

Detroit Publishing Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 04:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Seems to be some fairly substantial CCW tilt going on. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All man-made structures seem to be level. I think it's the terrain in the background that give the illusion of tilt. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Tabarin (talk) 22:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent restoration and composition. Adam (talk) 06:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Dresden photochrom2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto panorama

Reason

High-quality panorama.

Articles this image appears in

Toronto

Creator

Sunshine87

• Support as nominator --♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 23:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It has gone around more than once, probably 370 or 380 degrees. The stitching is pretty average, the horizon is wavy and there are clear exposure differences between frames. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Noodle snacks. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Too bad, because it's a fascinating picture. Perhaps with better stitching software? -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hftj — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.9.125 (65luhtalk) 05:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason

Um, it's just hilarious.

Articles this imas in

User:Majorly etc

Creator

• Support as nominator --Majorly talk 00:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Majorly iMatthew :  Chat  00:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - YES.... X! :  Chat  00:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per high encyclopedic value. Juliancolton :  Chat  00:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support Because it is (mostly) yellow. Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop edit conflicting already! Until It Sleeps :  Chat  00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  00:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think sockpuppets are eligible for voting... --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sorry, that was me D: Anyway, most awesome picture evar ≈ MindstormsKid^{[citation needed]} 00:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 00:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All that and no Pedro?. Synergy 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, copyvio. Q ^{T C} 01:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose and Speedy Close No, it's not funny. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, cause I was gonna try to nominate Awesome Face just now. ViperSnake151 02:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ((db-nowcommons)) Kimchi.sg (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Has no nose; unrealistic. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. • Comment' His mouth ate it. Q :  Chat  03:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • Even Stronger Oppose He's got a big mouth; blew the secret on my mom's surprise birthday party. Douchebag. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose It has no encyclopedic value at all. --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, it seems to fit in Smile and Parabolic eyes. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We can't add sillyness into articles. This is just a fun clip art used for User pages and other non-article stuff. If icons were elegible though, half of the ones in Commons would be FP. --ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 04:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This guy's got yellow fever. I will support a healthy version --Muhammad(talk) 04:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Refreshingly strong support Let's not be quite so serious here guys. It's a fun image and also there's bound to some articles on smileys, cyber culture, memes etc. to which it could contribute.

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been funnier if you closed as promote. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O

.

Chewing Gum

Reason

Ultra high quality, really tasty, the composition bests the like of Ansel Adams

Articles this image appears in

Chewing Gum

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in the strongest way possible, no wow. Also, background too noisy, image could do with serious cleanup. I had a stab at it in Edit 1.-- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hah, I hope you didn't go to too much effort. Noodle snacks (talk) 01:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• A Pedro-strong support the_ed17 :  Chat  02:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit2 sharpness is vastly improved in my edit, not to mention page load times. Also can be faxed more accurately. Mfield (Oi!) 02:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Scrambled Porn I mean edit 2. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's Kermit does Kansas. Mfield (Oi!) 02:48, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Comment. Needs size reference. I also suggest inverting, or possibly uploading the back of this photograph. Spikebrennan (talk) 12:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support if it lacks Miss Piggy. Can anybody identify her? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's there alright, it's a positional (and thus compositional) thing. Maybe it could be reshot from a different angle at which point we could delist and replace. Mfield (Oi!) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Supprt Alt 1 I had the original run through a new algorithm which enhances the picture and reconstructs objects. Sorry about the colour change though. --Muhammad(talk) 04:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice B&W restoration. Think you may have got a bit carried away with the clone tool though. Mfield (Oi!) 04:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

$100,000 bill

Reason

The economy's hurting everyone and featuring this image will allow us to remember when it was worth something.

Articles this image appears in

give it time

Creator

Woodrow Wilson's parents (bow-chicka-wow-wow!)

• Support Currently enough for a gallon of BGH milk, a box of easy mac, and a pack of cigarettes (the FDA's three main food groups). Add a few more and you can bail out your own car company! ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, maybe... Does not meet the size criteria. But if this is rare, I may make an exception. However, I prefer this nominated at Valued pictures. ZooFari 03:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unfortunately, a bit too small. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools! Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Riveting team

Reason

Riveting team working on the cockpit shell of a C-47 transport at the plant of North American Aviation, Inc., Inglewood, California. Office of War Information photo (1942) by Alfred T. Palmer. Encyclopedic and arresting.

Articles this image appears in

Rivet (to ilustrate process needing two people), Rosie the Riveter (as an accent image for the "unequal pay" line), United States Office of War Information, United States home front during World War II

Creator

Alfred T. Palmer, photographer.

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is a great photo technically, but it's so obviously staged (note the careful lighting, work clothes and equipment in immaculate condition, etc) I don't see any EV and I don't think that it meets criteria 3 and 5. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: I could really see the value of this subject if it were candid. But not as a studio shot. The lighting, as well, gives it distracting "atmosphere". The reality wasn't quite so glamorous, so I don't think this is an accurate enough representation. Maedin\^talk 18:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I get what you're saying. I removed the image from the Rivet article. I do however think the image is quite encyclopedically valuable for the United States Office of War Information and other articles, and precisely for the reasons it is not a good shot for rivet: this is obviously a staged shot. Through images like this the OWI is deliberately glamorizing women in their war-related roles, as part of its propaganda mission. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• (filched the glamorizing bit from Julie Wosk, 'Women and the Machine: Representations from the Spinning Wheel to the Electronic Age, JHU Press, 2003, ISBN 0801873134, ISBN 9780801873133) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:10, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eupeodes corollae

Reason

high quality depiction of a common species showing characteristic feature of males

Articles this image appears in

Eupeodes corollae, Eupeodes

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Lighting is flat, but its detailed and clear enough. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nice image but I notice it is already in a featured picture as part of this poster (File:Syrphidae poster.jpg) also created by Alvesgaspar. Would this preclude it from being an FP itself? I'm not sure. |→ Spaully^₪† 12:32, 27 March 2009 (GMT)
  • That is true but the size of this one is larger and they illustrate different articles. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would personally agree. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Maedin\^talk 18:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice, and good caption too. Fletcher (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Hoverfly January 2008-6.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feijoa sellowiana Flower

Reason

Clear, detailed, sharp, isolated subject

Articles this image appears in

Feijoa

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose [original] Well-composed and fairly large, but a good portion of the flower is blown completely to white. Sorry.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sincerest apologies, but you are wrong, please make some measurements or look at a histogram. http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=screenshot221.jpg has the histogram and a sample. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So the values are in the low 240s instead of 255, correct? However, they look blown (although perhaps not completely blown) to the eye. Ultimately, people and not machines will look at this image, many of whom who have minimal photographic experience. They won't bother to check the histogram, just be distracted by a blob of (off-)white in the middle of the image. I will, however, keep an open mind and watch this nom closely.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:53, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hence the edit... Noodle snacks (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support Edit Much better. Thank you.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 12:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support edit. Nice flower and photo. Good petal detail can be seen in the edit. |→ Spaully^₪† 15:09, 27 March 2009 (GMT)
• Support Edit per nom. --jjron (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support edit Good quality but as I mentioned above, I prefer natural backgrounds where possible. --Muhammad(talk) 18:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is dark green, though I know what you mean. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pig's Ear

Reason

High quality image of a fairly small flower.

Articles this image appears in

Cotyledon orbiculata, Crassulaceae, Cotyledon (plant)

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't viewed full size yet but DOF seems really small. What was the size of the flowers? --Muhammad(talk) 13:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a vernier with me whilst I went to water some of my seedlings. About 10mm. Noodle snacks (talk) 06:37, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would like to support but currently the image is used in only 1, one line article. I fail to see sufficient EV. --Muhammad(talk) 07:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Its in three now, which is at least as much corresponding article as File:Tachysphex specie edit1.jpg, for example. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak support --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support DOF isn't that much of an issue to me. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. DOF is adequate, IMO. Beautiful picture. (Also, glad to see the CC license rather than GFDL 1.2-only). BTW, I've started doing some wildflower photography myself, although most of my pictures are terrible so far. Kaldari (talk) 20:10, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that this is relevant to the nom at all, but I like this one. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I think if the background weren't so distracting, I might nominate that one. I guess I need to learn more about lighting so I can get those dark backgrounds. 98.193.167.252 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually fast shutter speeds with small apertures and flash lighting produce those dark backgrounds. Personally, I don't like them though --Muhammad(talk) 17:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite right and the iso has an effect too. File:Unknown Pinaceae Cones 3800.jpg for example lets in quite a bit of light. Really Depends on how distracting the background is. Noodle snacks (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - I have to know though: Are the water droplets natural or spray-on? :) 98.193.167.252 (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The plant is outdoors, and it was rained on. Though I'm not sure how natural H₂O varies from natural H₂O :D Noodle snacks (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Cotyledon orbiculata 3.jpg MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little trout bay, Lake superior, at sunrise

Reason

I think it's a beautiful image, meeting the criteria

Articles this image appears in

Little trout bay

Creator

Chzz

• Support as nominator --  Chzz  ►  13:05, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Just so you know, the FP regulars find sunrises and sunsets to be a somewhat controversially encyclopedic subject. Warning you now. Ceranthor 13:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - It's a nice image indeed, but there's little encyclopedic value to speak of. The image as a whole is rather grainy, as well. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Tells us very little about the subject. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Minimal encyclopedic value (EV). Spikebrennan (talk) 13:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Araucaria seeds

Reason

It is a good image of araucaria seeds, and I noticed none were present at the Araucaria page. Also, the image quality is good and eye-catching, IMO.

Articles this image appears in

Araucaria

Creator

rodrigomorante

• Support as nominator --Rodrigomorante (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The picture is in a gallery and is not referred to in the article. I can't support an abstract encyclopaedic value. If the article is modified in order to accommodate the picture, we'll se then. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Numerous blown highlights. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 01:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - harsh lighting, resulting in blown highlights. Perspective is a little too close for comfort. No great EV at the moment in article. With better lighting it would be good - sharpness isn't bad at full resolution, and focus/noise/compression/resolution/aberration are all at good levels. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Irene, Istanbul

Reason

High resolution encyclopedic picture of the first Christian church built in Constantinople. More recent pictures have more trees and, erm, stuff around the church and don't give as clear a view of the building.

Articles this image appears in

Constantine I and Christianity, Hagia Eirene

Creator

Sébah & Joaillier, photographers. Restored by Michel Vuijlsteke.

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 15:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Nice work! Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose Yeah there are trees and stuff now, but I'm not convinced that a good, modern photo is impossible. The one in Hagia Irene isn't too bad, and the color really brings this place to life. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 01:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asilidae Stichopogon sp.

Reason

Good quality, composition and EV. The fly was only 4mm long.

Articles this image appears in

Asilidae, Stichopogon, Dasypogoninae

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 05:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original, oppose alt Good pic of something so small.Terri G (talk) 18:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original the Alt has too much brightness. I prefer that composition, though. ZooFari 23:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Quality not comparable with existing FP's of similar subjects. Poor lighting, detail and sharpness. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out any other FPs of an insect of similar size? --Muhammad(talk) 03:42, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is not so much the overall size of the insect but the way details are shown (or not shown). See here, here and here. Difficult? Yes. Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overall size of the insect does affect the details shown. With a large organism, you can move further away from the subject and maintain a considerably larger aperture and still get good DOF. For smaller insects, you have to move as close as possible, use a small aperture to get a good DOF resulting in lack of sharpness. This image is of a larger subject, maybe 1.5 inches?, this is a 9mm subject and I believe getting good details of something of this size is not very difficult. File:Mole cricket02.jpg is of a small subject but then again its a studio shot, and these tend to be better due to obvious reasons. FWIW, I think the image nominated does show good details and sharpness. The small bristles on its legs are visible even at thumbnail size! (from my calculations, the size of these bristles is around 0.1mm). --Muhammad(talk) 10:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mole crickets are actually pretty big, 3-5cm. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Somehow I read mm instead of cm. Well, just emphasizes my points. --Muhammad(talk) 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original - For a subject this size (in a non-studio environment), it's pretty much impossible to get both perfect sharpness and DOF. I don't think there's any important information missing from the photo due to those limitations, though. Kaldari (talk) 20:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Alvesgaspar. I realise that the size is problematic, but better quality is possible with the right equipment. The alternative almost has the detail required but seems to be severely over exposed. I know how you feel, I've taken tons of bird photos that are not FP quality due to lack of reach. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have recovered the highlights and slightly decreased the exposure of the alternative (shown here as Edit Alt). Comments from everyone will be appreciated. Better? --Muhammad(talk) 16:47, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the creature brown or grey? WB needs some work on one of them. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The colors of the original seem truer. I have the raw, should I bother to upload another edit? --Muhammad(talk) 17:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus. Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jelly Bean Plant

Reason

Has enc for both the species and houseplants. This species reproduces by dropping jellybean's which form clones, which is quite interesting.

Articles this image appears in

Sedum rubrotinctum, Houseplant

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 12:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is this the best lighting possible? I feel like it's either too bright or too dark everywhere on the plant. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Noodle snacks (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More seriously, I lifted the shadows a bit. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality good enough for me. Good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:23, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Not a lot to say; good picture. Maedin\^talk 17:36, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. High EV - so that's where jelly beans come from; never knew that before! :-) --jjron (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sedum rubrotinctum.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karnac

Reason

Wikipedia ought to feature dozens of scenes from ancient Egypt. Not everything important is available in high resolution format yet; here we have a start: the ruins at Karnac, as recorded in 1838. Very high resolution file; smaller courtesy copy available at File:Karnacs2 couresy copy.jpg. Unrestored version at File:Karnacs.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Karnak

Creator

Louis Hahge (1806-1885)

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 06:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this splendid sketch. It looks much more vivid than the original one! It also gives the viewer an idea about the real dimension and proportion of the buildings. Quite informative. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - lovely restoration. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 11:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - huge EV, lovely restoration and great quality. I'd like some comment though - looking at the original, this seems a bit too blue. Anyone else agree? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Beautiful picture -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Excellent all around. I love images with this much complexity. Synergy 00:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree with Vanderdecken about the colors on this. The colors in the original look a lot more like what the actual place looks like, so maybe a happy medium would work best here. Makeemlighter (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Noodle snacks (talk) 12:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Karnacs2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worker at carbon black plant

Reason

Iconic image, and if it isn't it should be. A worker in a carbon black plant in Sunray, Texas (dated 1942).

Articles this image appears in

Carbon (illustrating "precautions", which talks about working in/with carbon black), Sunray, Texas, Carbon black, John Vachon

Creator

John Vachon

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support de Bivort 22:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Enormous EV. Ceranthor 13:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support but the harsh light makes it hard to see. Donama (talk) 00:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Really bad lighting. Also not sold on the EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Rare color documentation of labor conditions before modern safety regulations were fully implemented. Unusually good textures for a color photo. Durova^Charge! 20:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I've been thinking about this one for some time. The EV is unquestionably great, but as mentioned earlier, the lack of lighting significantly reduces its overall value. Too much of the image's detail is simply lacking or not visible at all due to this. -- matt3591 ^TC 22:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I'm going to have to agree with Ceranthor and Durova on this. While the lighting is not as good as it should be, this is definitely a good picture with extremely high EV. Its showing just how the average work done by these workers take its toll on facial features and coloration. Synergy 00:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in spite of lighting concerns. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Adam (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yet again I find myself wondering where the (enormous, unquestionably great) EV is. Sunray, Texas: doesn't tell us anything about the town, so no EV. Carbon: it's supposed to illustrate "precautions"; well, that section isn't really about precautions, and this picture doesn't tell me anything the section doesn't or explain anything that the section does say. Carbon black:okay, so this guy works at a carbon black plant...how does that make this picture illustrate carbon black? John Vachon: this is probably where the picture has the most EV. But it's still not a tremendous amount. So, maybe there's a little EV in each of four articles. But it says in the criteria, "An image has more encyclopedic value if it contributes strongly to a single article, rather than contributes weakly to many." Anyone have thoughts on this? Makeemlighter (talk) 06:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with you, Makeemlighter, this has artistic value but it's not illustrating the articles. The picture hints at possibly harsh working conditions and long-term damage, but that isn't the subject of the articles it is in. Maedin\^talk 17:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I like the lighting, but it doesn't really leave much of an image from an encyclopaedia point of view. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus MER-C 07:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi campaign poster

Reason

Possibly the most offensive featured content candidate we could run, but highly encyclopedic. Restored version of File:Vote number 1.jpg. Uploaded locally (where admins tend to be draconian about deleting images that aren't used in article space); will supply a smaller courtesy version upon request.

Articles this image appears in

Nazi Party, Early timeline of Nazism, Adolf Hitler's rise to power

Creator

Rehse-Archiv für Zeitgeschichte und Publizistik

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you mind being more specific as to why this isn't at Commons? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the template (((Do not move to Commons))) on the image page says, the image is PD in the US but not in its country of origin, therefore it cannot be hosted on Commons. I would have asked this question had I not seen the template :). —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Looks a bit faded towards the top. Kaldari (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploaded new version. The edit isn't much different so it's under the same filename. Durova^Charge! 15:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment-The poster itself is not offensive-there is no distasteful imagery or Nazi symbols.In fact as Nazi posters go,it's a fairly subdued one.Whilst I appreciate the historical background is deeply disturbing,it's necessary(if somewhat difficult) to consider just the picture itself,regardless of our personal views on its subject. Lemon martini (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Nazi symbol - the digit 1 is standing on top of a swastika. File:Nazi Swastika.svg —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's there, but it could be used much more distastefully. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because an image is offensive to you personally doesn't make it any less historically important or of any lower quality. We cannot let personal feelings inform our opinions on whether this is a significant, quality image - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wadester doesn't seem to be calling it personally offensive, or opposing it. Fwiw what bothers me more than many other Nazi images is that it actually is a technically meritorious example of graphic design. It puts a public face on a repulsive bit of history and almost makes it palatable. The Nazis were media-savvy (they had to be good at something in order to rise to power), and this is an example of why not to place uncritical trust a well-packaged media appeal. Durova^Charge! 04:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support For EV --Muhammad(talk) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Definite Support Great EV, good restoration. This isn't really that offensive, but either way we don't censor and this is real history. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support - on grounds of reasonable quality but fantastic EV. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 17:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is so detailed and the colours are so strong. This is excellent - The Talking Sock talk contribs 22:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Über support (pun intended). However I have a question: the original seems to have some black borders around it, shouldn't they have been kept? Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, upon a closer look I decided to hold my support for the moment. The top of the "1" and the a few parts of the swastika have some pretty annoying white stripes (see image to the left). Are they the result of the restoration process? If so, I think it would be better if they were removed. Diego_pmc ^Talk 22:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No white stripes were visible on my monitor at 100% resolution. What resolution did you see stripes? And what orientation did the stripes have? The original artwork did have some uneven patches in black on the number, most of which appeared to have been segments where black ink had been applied slightly unevenly. If that isn't what you're referring to (and it doesn't seem to be) then I'm a little confused; maybe it's a monitor issue? Durova^Charge! 22:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My resolution is 1280x1024. I don't know if they are more obvious because of my monitor, but I can see them quite clearly. But they're surely from the image, they're not the type of things that could result from a misconfiguration of the monitor. They're more like patches of color that are wither than the rest of the color around them, not stripes. It's most visible in the lower corner of the arm of the swastika from center of the image (the one closest to the viewer). Diego_pmc ^Talk 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean less black? That might be the uneven ink distribution. I'll get to work on that. :) Durova^Charge! 23:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do appear to be in the original, if not so obvious - they appear to be small wrinkles in the paper combined with some printing artefacts. I'm kind of neutral about this restoration, though: I'd kind of prefer a little more of the original's lightly-aged paper tone, rather than pure white. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended pending this. MER-C 08:09, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Great EV. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose adds little to the articles it's present in in terms of illuminating the text, "list 1" mentioned in the caption isn't mentioned anywhere in any of the articles and the the large "1" is the main focus of the poster's design. Guest9999 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • List 1 refers to the placement of the party's candidates on a ballot. Ballot format itself is rarely important enough to discuss in article text, unless it's the Palm Beach County, Florida butterfly ballot of the 2000 elections. What this image demonstrates is part of how the Nazis gained power: by presenting a simple mnemonic in a visually compelling manner to make it as easy as possible for voters to remember and support them. Durova^Charge! 20:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not appear to be discussed in the articles either, if it was and this poster was shown to be a good example of the phenomenon I would probably support. Sorry for the list 1 confusion I think I misread "at" as "and". Guest9999 (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, it verges on OR to express that much. With most campaign posters relevance is implied in an article that discusses an election or a political career (two posters from the US presidential election of 1864 are recent examples). At Adolf Hitler's rise to power this replaced a fair use image that had been stable at the article for some time. Durova^Charge! 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very interesting, small issues as seen above, but overall positive Kennedy ^(talk) 09:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Have uploaded proposed changes over the existing file. Although it's possible to go even farther, there's a line to be drawn between restoring old graphic art and improving upon the original. It really wouldn't be right to make Nazi propaganda look better than it actually was. Durova^Charge! 22:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuspended. Returning to nomination list for a quick check that nothing went wrong. :) MER-C 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Vote number 1b.jpg MER-C 07:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steroidogenesis

Reason

Large, lots of important information, useful in multiple important articles. The colors make it look less boring than depictions in black-and-white, if not to say even beautiful.

Articles this image appears in

Creator

User:Slashme and User:Mikael Häggström

• Support as nominator --Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Why isn't the svg version nominated? --Muhammad(talk) 15:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki renders svg-images imperfectly, requiring them to first be converted to a raster format to avoid ugly flaws. Because this version looks better in Wikipedia, I nominated it. Perhaps both versions should be nominated, but I'm not sure that's allowed. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I am qualified to vote for the image, so I abstain. --Muhammad(talk) 18:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - For now. Being in so many articles it is certainly useful, but I'm not able to assess if it deserves FP status. For example, the meaning of the labels is not clear. In the box, it refers to cellular location, but in the figure it appears to indicate some kind of transformation (green) or enzime (red). The type of the colored areas (some of them with a border line, other without) isn't clear either. Let's wait for further opinions and enlightment -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enzymes have both a cellular localization (e.g. mitochindria or endoplasmic reticulum) as well as a function. I'm not sure, however, that it needs to be specifically stated. As to borders, there is no strict border between e.g. glucocorticoids (green area) and mineralocorticoids (purple area), since they partly overlap. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - on comparison of the two versions I don't see any encyclopaedic inaccuracies in the SVG render, only a couple of sub-10px-difference text aligment issues. When we actually have a very good SVG already uploaded, not having to find someone to create one, I can't support the PNG. If the SVG was nominated, you'd have my support, as all other criteria are completely satisfied. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added the svg version. The small changes made to it can be made to the next png-derivative later, when we now there are no more changes to be made for now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the addition of the SVG version and a few corrections to it, I change my vote to Support SVG. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support, after the improvements -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as original contributor: I created the black-and-white diagram, and I feel that it's greatly improved by the addition of colour: not only does it make the diagram clearer, but it illustrates the overlap between the functions of the illustrated steroids. I'd also like to note that this is a great example of the multiple-authorship model of Wikipedia! --Slashme (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point! I made a little gallery on the image page, giving a brief flashback of the evolution of the image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Very nice and hugely useful. Another good svg. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:57, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
• Nice. I suggest to rotate the enzyme names 180 degrees so they read in the same orientation as the "Androgens (19 corbons)" and "Estrogens (21 carbons)" labels at the left. Less strain people's necks :-) . --İnfoCan (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing it! I corrected it, but I found it was better to turn the "Androgens" and "Estrogens" instead, avoiding having to read from bottom to top. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Steroidogenesis.svg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Chinook, Birmingham, UK

Reason

This image was taken during a cadet training exercise at a school in Birmingham. I think it is compositionally very unique and pleasing: the featureless expanse of grass counterpoints the helicopter quite dramatically, and the line of trees draws the eye upwards. The bright sky outlines the helicopter well and also makes visible the dirt and grass blown out by the downdraft. On a more practical note, I notice that the Wikipedia page on the Boeing Chinook (which is the the RAF version as opposed to the American CH-47 version) lacks any other similar image or indeed any other image in which the whole aircraft including rotors is composed.

Articles this image appears in

Boeing Chinook (UK variants)

Creator

Azonixmaestro

• Support as nominator --Azonixmaestro (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is a nicely composed image, however it falls on a few points: There are flecks that are either dirt from some form of scan or debris from the wash; the darkness of the image and low light conditions mean it is not very informative about the subject; the low light also means at full size it is fairly unfocussed and noisy. Together these negatives make this an oppose vote, although I do like the photo, sorry. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:51, 31 March 2009 (GMT)
• Oppose Really bad lighting. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The contrast is bad, but good photo for creativity. ZooFari 04:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Azonixmaestro I think "really bad" is a little abrupt. Surely that's a matter of opinion? Also those flecks are indeed from the downdraft; no dodgy scanning involved. It could perhaps be said that they enhance the picture by illustrating the downdraft. Plus with a correctly calibrated monitor, detail can be resolved along pretty much the whole of the left flank so it's not a complete contrejour.
• Oppose I really like many aspects of this photo; it's well framed and the helicopter looks great against the sky. That said, it falls down technically for a number of reasons. Whilst detail can be resolved along its side, it's incredibly noisy there, and being the subject of the photo that's really not great. The photo is at a wide angle too, which means that the trees (and the street lights on the Bristol Road) are not perpendicular to the ground. Both of these aspects detract from the Enc. Value of the photo, which is of great importance to an FPC. At least it settles an argument, I was giving a tutorial to some first year students 300 metres away at the time, a few foolishly claiming that it was landing at The Guild. bad_germ 09:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Didn't check the edit history to see if it was removed, but right now this isn't in any articles. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:31, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Idi Amin

Reason

Edmund S. Valtman was a Pulitzer Prize winning political cartoonist who donated a portion of his work to the public domain. This example is a caricature of Idi Amin, Ugandan military dictator and the president of Uganda from 1971 to 1979. Restored version of File:Idi Amin caricature.jpg. Scanned from original artist's sketch; pencil lines made by the artist before inking have been retained (most visible at chin and shoulders).

Articles this image appears in

Edmund S. Valtman, Idi Amin

Creator

Edmund S. Valtman

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 20:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. I could id the image without reading the caption. --Muhammad(talk) 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - great caricature, excellent value. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but I feel the white balance is a little blue. Anyone else, or would that be my laptop? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 11:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On my system the white balance appears different between Photoshop, Commons, and en:wiki for this image. Have had all three windows open at the same time side by side, and can't explain the discrepancy. That's why I tweaked and reuploaded so many times. Durova^Charge! 19:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We use a pale blue background for non-mainspace pages, in Photoshop it's surrounded by grey and I think Commons is white. The perception of color is dependent on the surrounding colors. MER-C 02:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to try another edit if you can achieve a better balance. The uncompressed TIFF file is linked from the image hosting page. Durova^Charge! 17:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good EV. Makeemlighter (talk) 17:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Does Valtman have any similar sketches of Robert Mugabe? Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Idi Amin caricature2.jpg MER-C 07:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein Headshot

Reason

High-quality portraiture of Albert Einstein, a well known historical figure. Image is a rare portrait shot of Einstein at the old age of 68.

Articles this image appears in

Albert Einstein

Creator

Photograph by Oren Jack Turner, Princeton, N.J (File:Albert Einstein 1947.jpg)).
Original image cleaned/leveled by User:Jaakobou.

• Support as nominator --Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 10:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose. His face seems a bit 'flat' and lacking in contrast, and there is a rather unfortunate line down his nose - a scan artifact? Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Terribly sorry but oppose fro the moment. The Library of Congress original isn't terrific to start with, but this image is upsampled from the original tiff, which makes it a little fuzzier still. I would first of all keep the image at its original size, deal with the (scanning?) artifacts on the right hand side of the portrait, and then fiddle with the histogram a bit to increase the contrast. Perhaps do just a leetle sharpening around the eyes (faded to, say, 20% or so), and leave the image otherwise as is. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment On quick inspection, there seems to be a significant amount of artifacting on the nose and mustache of the original. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadat and Begin

Reason

Historically valuable and in good quality. Restored version of File:Sadat and Begin.jpg. Egypt was the first Arab country to recognize Israel, and this is the photo of the leaders of both countries when they finalized the agreement that made peace between them.

Articles this image appears in

Anwar El Sadat, Menachem Begin, Camp David Accords, Presidency of Jimmy Carter

Creator

Leffler, Warren K. , image restoration work by User:Jaakobou

• Support as nominator --Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 17:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How would you feel about cropping the black border? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 23:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 07:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'd suggest a tighter crop over Sadat's head and behind Begin's back, so that it's more obvious which people are the subject of the picture. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: including members of the crowd helps provide context. i.e. they just announced the signing of the peace accords. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frieze of Parnassus

Reason

My first 'image set' nomination. I've always been fairly happy with these images. Image quality and resolution is very good, allowing you to see all 169 historical composers, architects, poets, painters, and sculptors, probably in greater detail than can be seen by the naked eye, as a fence stops the public from getting too close. The set also shows all four sides of the frieze - something that (by the laws of physics) a single photo cannot. I am open to the idea of combining each of them into a single image, but that might require text within the image to annotate the set properly. An idea, anyway, if 4 separate images isn't to taste. For the record, yes I know the lighting isn't consistent for all four images, but that is to be expected when the sun isn't directly overhead. I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result.

Articles this image appears in

Frieze of Parnassus

Creator

User:Diliff

• Support as nominator --Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Before I automatically oppose a 'featured set' (yes, please combine into one image), can you comment on whether these have perspective distortion caused by shooting up, or whether that is the shape of the memorial? If distorted, would you be amenable to correcting for it? Another quibble, but assuming this is a square memorial, shouldn't all images be cropped identically, and thus be identical sizes? There's a fair bit of variation there in both the cropping and sizes. --jjron (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha, well the reason why I kept them separate is that others may not want all four images (similar to the reason why we prefer to leave diagrams annotated in a particular language), but I suppose we can also have a combined image in addition to the component images. I'll do that tonight. I don't think it is distorted though. If you look at the full monument, you can see the angle that these images were taken from. It was near enough to impossible to get the exact dimensions identical for each image though, given the distance that these images were taken from (30 metres away or so) and the lack of a way to measure the distance accurately. I could downsample them to match more exactly, but I don't think that's really necessary when they're separate files (would be for the combined image, obviously). I don't think there is that much variation in cropping though. I made sure that each image was cropped in the same way, but it is inevitable that there will be slight differences. The fence rails might have been built to inexact tolerances, the grass that I took the image from may have been slightly higher or lower than the equivalent on other sides, etc. All these could contribute to minor variations, but I'd like to think that we're not so picky as to expect a FP photographer to also be a mathematician and surveyor. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For an FP photographer or standard FPC, no. But for an accursed featured set, yes. They require super-standards :-) --jjron (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Have uploaded a collage. What do you think? Wasn't sure how best to do it but tried to keep it as minimalist as possible. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 20:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if there's a reason for the sequence chosen, it looks odd starting with S, though it does match the table in the article - is that some sort of convention or was that a specific design sequence for the monument or something? Also I don't think the text is required (as you suggested above), I'd just use the image page description and/or the image caption, or at most number (or letter) them on the photo itself so as it's more usable across wikis (and why red text anyway?). Despite that, the collage is better - for example if done individually I'd probably say oppose the blown (or close to) sky in the north image, but that can be excused in the collage version IMO. --jjron (talk) 07:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the choices you mentioned regarding the collage were arbitrary, really. I just thought that red text contrasted better than black, and given that there is really no particular 'order' for compass directions (other than the oft-used clockwise NESW), I left it as it was in the article. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What if we made it a featured set with the current FP of the entire monument as the lead image? Just an idea.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support de Bivort 21:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt Edit 1 or other collage versions. I have done an edit removing the text, and with some selective levels and shadow adjustments to try to even out the lighting a bit and bring out a bit more detail in some parts, and adding a far better text description to the image page. I also edited the article to show you how I think this would be better placed, including an improved caption (am happy for you to revert once you've had a look). If you want to edit back off the originals and replace my version would support that too. However oppose the featured set for reasons given above, and also because it only appears in a gallery in the article. --jjron (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral It would have looked a lot better if the weather was overcast and the lighting was even on all four faces. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the nominator commented in the original reason "I've tried to take the same shots on an overcast day but found the relief looked a bit flat as a result". Seems you can't have it all ways. --jjron (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I haven't viewed full res due to large size but IMO EV is very good. For the closer, if the nomination does not receive enough supports for promotion, then count this as a support as quality must be good. Prefer alternative, then Alt edit1--Muhammad(talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a composite, preferably Alt Edit 1.--ragesoss (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Albert Memorial Friese Collage - May 2008-edit1.jpg MER-C 07:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sunflower macro

Reason

Good quality, DOF, and EV. The image has been in some of the articles for more than 2 months now.

Articles this image appears in

Asteraceae, Sunflower, Inflorescence

Creator

Muhammad

• Support as nominator --Muhammad(talk) 07:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Previous nomination. MER-C 08:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The most glaring issue mentioned in the previous nomination looks fixed. I would like to know what the grub thingy is in the middle of the picture. Might be some EV in that. :) -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 08:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its some kind of a worm. --Muhammad(talk) 13:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll rephrase: I'd like to know exactly what the grub-like, worm-like thingy in the middle is: a larva of some sort perhaps? To me it's the star of the picture: once you've seen it's there, it's noticeable even in the thumbnail. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am working on getting an expert to id it but it may take some time. --Muhammad(talk) 07:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The worm was identified as a lepidopteran larva. --Muhammad(talk) 07:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • That doesn't seem very specific. Is a species ID not possible? Your reference is to an order made up of all moths and butterflies (referenced as "one of the most speciose orders in the class Insecta" in the article). ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 06:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Species id for the larva is impossible as I did not see the worm before photographing the flower and I do not have any picture with good details. Nonetheless, this image is supposed to show a sunflower and IMO it does that. The worm is a bonus. --Muhammad(talk) 07:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - very nice image - has 'wow' factor! :D - Fastily (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral its pretty interesting, plus its sharp and detailed. The focus stack seems to have been fairly well done. Unfortunately the highlights are severely blown, which isn't really acceptable for a subject that you can shoot again. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 10:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support per Noodle Snacks good point. ZooFari 16:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Sunflower macro wide.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a M777 howitzer in action

Reason

I find the quality of this photo superb and I think a picture at such a close range and with such good timing must be unusual.

Articles this image appears in

M777 howitzer

Creator

Jonathanmallard

• Support as nominator --— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some mention of the Muzzle brake in the caption wouldn't hurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noodle snacks (talk • contribs)
  • Agree - I'll have a think about how to incorporate it. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Don't we already have a featured picture that is very similar in subject matter and composition to this one? --Grandpafootsoldier (talk) 08:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean File:4-14 Marines in Fallujah.jpg? Yes, it's quite similar and I hadn't seen it when I nominated this picture. Shall I withdraw this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you do, the current FP has higher encyclopaedic value and better composition. I doubt this would pass in contrast, however you can leave it to process if you wish, it's your decision. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well personally I support it, as quality is decent and EV seems great. It is a different howitzer than the above referenced M198, though admittedly of the same caliber. We don't have a "scope" concept here similar to the the Commons version of Valued Pictures, so it's possible to have more than one FP for similar subjects. The nom'd image is in a separate article as well so I'm not sure it's diluted too much by the existence of the other FP. Fletcher (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sophus Bie ^(talk) 01:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have a copyright question. This image came from flickr and was licensed there under CC-BY. However, this was changed to PD-USGov-Military-Army. Is this right? There is no evidence that this photo was "made during the course of the person's official duties." The argument goes that I guess any private photos you take while during a tour of duty become PD? Is that correct, or should we revert the copyright tag back to CC-BY?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:29, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I have asked User:Terrillja to comment on this. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:::Hi, the question here is was the image taken white the person was on duty. If it was an image of a bunch of soldiers playing football on base, I'd tend to agree that this would belong to the person who took the image. However, this image was taken by a soldier, during deployment, and is of an artillery piece in action, which would indicate to me that they were on duty, and that the image was taken while they were under the employment of the army. Since the image was taken while they were working for the army, the image becomes the property of their employer, similar to how a web designer does not own the copyright to work that they did for a company while they were working for that company. My tagging was based on some other images that I had seen which were also personal flickr images and were imported here: [17] and [18] Apparently the army has an account on flickr too. Go figure. If this was wrong, I will certainly offer my apology. --Terrillja _talk 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

I would say the question is more like, was the image taken as part of the person's official duties -- in other words, was the photographer employed by the army to take photographs? In contrast to someone taking a personal photo with their own camera during a tour of duty. The photographer's user page User:Jonathanmallard says he is a medic and the EXIF data indicates it was shot with a Canon Point & Shoot, not a professional SLR like you would expect a military photographer to use, so I tend to think this is a personal photo. I doubt soldiers' personal photos are required to be in the public domain. Fletcher (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. Perhaps, without further hard evidence, since no one seems to know for sure, we should just defer to the license this user released the image on flickr? I'm not sure which is worse, releasing someones personal photo into the public domain or adding a CC-BY stipulation to an otherwise PD government image (assuming we choose the wrong license here)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better to protect someone's rights that might not exist than to deny someone's rights that might really exist. I changed it back to the CC license. Maybe Jonathan can clarify it for us. Fletcher (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Note Someone should also check out this one, since it was taken by the same person and tagged pd-usgov-army by another user on commons. Perhaps this needs to be clarified somewhere what official duties entails. Does an image taken while on patrol count as "on duty" if you are not an army photographer? I mean you aren't employed as a photographer, but you are working on taxpayer time, so what is the deal there?--Terrillja _talk 02:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC) per Fletcher below[reply]

This would seem to be the answer:

A "work of the United States Government," referred to in this document as a U.S. Government work, is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person's official duties. (See 17 USC § 101, Definitions.56) [...]

An officer's or employee's official duties are the duties assigned to the individual as a result of employment. Generally, official duties would be described in a position description and include other incidental duties. Official duties do not include work done at a government officer's or employee's own volition, even if the subject matter is government work, so long as the work was not required as part of the individual's official duty. (S.REP. NO. 473, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 56-57) (1976) "A government official or employee should not be prevented from securing copyright in a work written at his own volition and outside his duties, even though the subject matter involves his government work or his professional field.") For further discussion, see Tresansky, John O. Copyright in Government Employee Authored Works. 57 30 Cath. L. Rev. 605 (1981).

So if his official duties as a medic do not include taking pictures of howitzers then the copyright still belongs to him. If he is taking pictures on taxpayer time that is a discipline issue, not a copyright issue. But I don't think we can assume even that much; maybe he is doing it on whatever free time he is given. And it's not like snapping a pic with a point and shoot is a big waste of time anyway. I could see your point if he was doing a long exposure on a view camera trying to be Ansel Adams of Afghanistan while someone is bleeding out on a gurney in the clinic, but I don't think that's what's happening here! :-) Fletcher (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support assuming copyright can be sorted out. Shame the angle isn't quite as good as the other FP, but I think it's still good enough to illustrate the article it's in. Terri G (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Shouldn't mid-nomination edits be mentioned on this page? An edit was made and I don't see any indication of that here. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, I think that new versions are supposed to be uploaded with a different name so that we can compare them? There seems to be a parallel nomination happening at Commons:Featured picture candidates/candidate list#File:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg and the change was due to a comment there. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The existing, similar, FP is better in several aspects (such as lighting etc). Noodle snacks (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since that image illustrates a different gun, I don't think that's an addressable concern. I suggest that all commenters with this rationale reconsider their !votes. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say it's a valid point, even in the sense that it indicates that a better shot of this subject is quite acquirable. It's pretty common to compare noms to existing FPs of similar subjects, e.g., a new butterfly nom to existing butterfly FPs. --jjron (talk) 13:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Illustrates the subject well. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got to take this picture because a friend of mine knew people over at the field artillery unit on my FOB. It had been a dream of mine to load and pull the lanyard of a Howitzer. heck im a sucker for big guns! after i got to do that I took this photo on my time. clinic was over we had no traumas to speak of. I really dont care what the copyright is. i just wanted as many people as possible to enjoy my photography. im a medic i work trauma day in and day out. photography is my stress reliever it keeps me from going crazy. I just want people to enjoy my photography and if my name is at the bottom that i took it thats all i care about. heres me about to load the M777: [19]. Jonathanmallard —Preceding undated comment added 12:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Some more input would be nice now that the copyright issue has been resolved by the copyright holder. I'll also point out that the user's Flickr gallery is quite fascinating. Check it out if you have some time (personal opinion, of course). Best of luck to our soldier overseas. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 05:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I don't know if the creator is still watching, but I don't quite get the dimensions on this image. It looks odd at this size when there's no apparent reason for the crop of the height (this camera takes fullsize images at 3648×2736) - in fact if there was more height then the smoke wouldn't have to be cutoff at the top. I'd like to hear an explanation, but the awkward looking crop along with other reasons given above, inclines me towards opposing. --jjron (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support Outstanding image. Opposing on the grounds that we already have an existing FP of a different towed artillery piece is like opposing the next high quality image of an insect on the grounds that we already have a FP of a bug. --Leivick (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2009

Promoted Image:M777 Light Towed Howitzer 1.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(UTC)

• Comment.Jjron i had just bought the camera i was not familiar with all its settings. I had put my camera on the wide screen setting because it looks great on my desktop. thanks Jonathanmallard —Preceding undated comment added 21:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Polemonium reptans

Reason

Good lighting, decent DOF, very high res, sharp, good EV, and really pretty :)

Articles this image appears in

Polemonium reptans

Creator

Kaldari

• Support as nominator --Kaldari (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit I gave the original a sharpen (hope you don't mind), I think you should chop off a bit since it looks a bit off centre atm. I've attached an edit with a mild curves and such a crop. The depth of field is a shallow, but its obviously a pretty small flower. Noodle snacks (talk)
  • Thanks for the edit. I didn't think to sharpen it, good idea. The crop looks better too. Yeah, the DOF isn't amazing, but two of the flowers are completely in focus, and several of the others are mostly in focus, so you aren't loosing any important information at least. Kaldari (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I redid the original with the following edits: cropped to put the flowers in the center, sharpened, saved at a lower compression setting (less jpeg artifacting), plus I got rid of the clarity boost I did on the RAW file since that combined with the sharpening was making the petals look too papery and brittle, when in actuality they appear quite soft. (That's why mine looks a little less contrasty that yours.) Hope I managed to improve it. Let me know if you still like your edit better. Kaldari (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Question How big was each flower? --Muhammad(talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can get a reasonable idea from the DOF at f11, but the "flowers are 1.3cm long" according to the article. Noodle snacks (talk) 07:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then this was probably not shot at 1:1, right? If so, wouldn't it be better to show a close-up view of one flower only? --Muhammad(talk) 07:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can get a good idea of their size from this picture. The flowers always grow in bunches, so it seems more encyclopedic to show a bunch, IMO, even if that means not all of them are in focus. Kaldari (talk) 17:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for lack of better DOF. --Muhammad(talk) 07:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either: Ticks all of the boxes. Maedin\^talk 17:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which version? MER-C 07:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Either for me. Noodle snacks (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer original --Muhammad(talk) 10:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original. Per creators comments about what it really looks like. Nice image. |→ Spaully^₪† 11:12, 7 April 2009 (GMT)
• Original - BTW, I should also note that I tweaked the color on the original to be more lavender, as it matches the actual color more closely. I'm not sure how I got pure blue flowers in the first version of the photo, but if you see them in real life, there's definitely a touch of lavender. Kaldari (talk) 15:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Polemonium reptans 2009.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 02:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dark side of Wikipedia

Reason

High EV

Articles this image appears in

[20]

Creator

the creator of the image, where possible using the format wikiuser

• Support as nominator --Erwin Eisen (talk) 11:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The force is strong with this one. Tom™_(2¢) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted check the date MER-C 12:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clowning around

Reason

A serious nomination to fit the date. Restored version of File:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese.jpg.

Articles this image appears in

Circus clown, Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus, Clown

Creator

Strobridge Litho. Co.

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Can't oppose, clown will eat me. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A clean example of a poster Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. What Spikebrennan said. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Barnum & Bailey clowns and geese2.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

USS Iowa turret explosion

Reason

This year marks the 20th anniversary of this US Navy incident, and I still think this image has what it takes to be featured. Previous attempts have suffered from one or two technical issues and insufficient support for consensus, but I hope that third time will be lucky. I would like to have this image featured in time for the 20th anniversary of the incident, although that desire is second to ensuring that FPC criteria are upheld.

Articles this image appears in

April 19, USS Iowa (BB-61), Live fire exercise, USS Iowa turret explosion, Fred Moosally, A Glimpse of Hell (book)

Creator

LT. Thomas Jarrell

• Support as nominator --TomStar81 (Talk) 17:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Original. Edit is way too grainy! Ceranthor 22:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the past consensus. I don't think renominating a few times will help increase chances of becoming a FP. ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Past consensus such as it existed has always been less than five people. The first time garnered only two opposes, the second had only support but not enough for promotion. To say that you oppose per past conesensus implies either opposition to the image on grounds hat it has failed to garner the need support to pass or opposition becuase of tehnical issues which are beleived to have been addressed in the touched up version below the original. Since you are asked to a give a valid reason for opposition that can be addressed, I respectfully seek claification on your opposition so I can better understand why you beleive the image should not be promoted. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. The first one has compression issues (or blurred in thumbnail) and they both obviously are too grainy. If it has value though, this may be eligible for Valued Pictures. ZooFari, today's top vandal. (talk) 22:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - not clear enough. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - between the technical and the aesthetic, I don't think it's up to FP standards, although it's certainly a valuable image.--ragesoss (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-15C during Operation Deny Flight

Reason

I've never nominated a FP before, but I think that this is just a stunning image, particularly the rather ominous clouds in the background. In my opinion, it has excellent symbolism within the context of Operation Deny Flight and the Bosnian War. The raw power of the F-15C, but also the dark clouds gathering in the background. The picture was taken in 1993, just when it seemed like NATO airpower would make a big difference, but the optimists ignored the dark clouds in the background, which eventually led to Srebenica and the like.

Articles this image appears in

Operation Deny Flight, 36th Wing

Creator

Sergeant Jane Schroeder, USAF

• Support as nominator --Cool3 (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose To much noise and not very clear . Adam (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, totally new to picture terminology. What is noise? Thanks. Cool3 (talk) 02:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Looked it up, for anyone else interested, please see Image noise. Cool3 (talk) 02:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - too many distracting elements and image noise. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose - I'd rather have the uniform film grain noise (it is film grain, as opposed to nasty digital CCD colour noise) than the strange lack of texture and non-uniform correction in the edit. As it is, I don't think the encyclopaedic value or the wow factor are high enough to justify the minor less-than-perfect-ness of the technical execution. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose original, Strong oppose edit. Film grain is much preferable to the results of trying to remove grain digitally.--ragesoss (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I agree that the original is better than the edit. In my opinion, the edit also loses much of the "foreboding" that gives the original its value; however, it appears that no one else is supporting this anyway. Cool3 (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hovering hoverfly

Reason

An uncommon and enc view of an hoverfly in flight, hovering above the ground. Though not technically excellent, I believe it illustrates the subject better than existing FP's, including Fir's marvellous airborne sex photo.

Articles this image appears in

Insect flight

Creator

Alvesgaspar (talk)

• Support as nominator --Alvesgaspar (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. You're right, it certainly does illustrate insect flight better than Fir's shot (although I think we would ideally need a sharp, super slow-mo animation), but given the image quality and the fact that the subject takes up such a small proportion of the frame, I think it is probably more of a VPC than FPC. I'm not saying it isn't a wonderful shot though. I know it is, because I've tried and never managed to lock focus on one of those hoverflies in time to capture it before it flew away. :-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 14:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant oppose per Diliff. Too bad it doesn't have enough resolution to crop and remain a candidate. Good capture. Durova^Charge! 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I have many of these which are much better, eg this. --Fir0002 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose though it difficult capturing an image like Fir's, it isn't impossible. ZooFari 00:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair though, it isn't really about what is possible or impossible, but rather what is realistic. Fir managed to get extremely lucky with that mating fly photo, and I do wonder how many hours he spent shooting before he got that one. Not to say that skill wasn't involved either though! Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 07:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have better flight pictures, like this one. But neither of them was taken from below. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 03:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lighting through the ages

Reason

Eclairage, plate by Maurice Dessertenne for volume IV (E-G) of the Nouveau Larousse illustré (France, 1898-1907). Is there's anyone here who didn't spend countless hours pouring over illustrations like this in encyclopedias when they were young? And who still does?

Illustrates high-quality custom-made engravings for encyclopedias, and of course the various means of making light through the ages (prehistory - ca. 1900).

The way everything is slotted into "Antiquity", "Middle age and modern times", "Contemporary period" and, weirdly, "Japan", just adds to the charm, I feel.

Articles this image appears in

Encyclopedia, Maurice Dessertenne

Creator

Engraving by Maurice Dessertenne; scanned and restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 13:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Durova^Charge! 17:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Superb resolution. Could you please fix two small things? There is "debris" to be removed to the left of the 1 and at the bottom right corner. Maedin\^talk 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Eclairage.jpg ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dry Tortugas Light

Reason

Excellent, high-resolution view not only of the original light tower, but of the station outbuildings as well, providing a nice idea of the station layout. It also shows the effect weathering has had on the structure.

Articles this image appears in

Dry Tortugas Light

Creator

United States Coast Guard, Petty Officer 2nd Class Jennifer Johnson; uploaded by DanMS

• Support as nominator --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 01:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted for further consideration, and/or editing to deal with the problems pointed out. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, I've been to the Dry Tortugas in November, and don't believe this is oversaturated. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 11:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MER-C. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Relisting this picture was a mild and civilized way of dealing with a gross closing mistake. After this agressive striking action, the question is: shall we continue with the poll or just promote the picture, as it should have been done before? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop the presses per above. Invalid strikethroughs performed without permission or notification of reviewers. Durova^Charge! 20:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe this has been corrected: It was rather arbitrarily done by Wadester some time after the relisting. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Striking objection; thank you for the restorations. Durova^Charge! 23:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technical quality on this was always weak, but evidently not detected by first 5 voters. --jjron (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of "do the original votes count yes-no-yes-no" has ruined any chance of this having a fair run anymore in this page. Hence, per talk page, provisionally promoting per original votes, but listing as a delist nom. Promoted Image:Dry Tortugas Lighthouse 2005.jp --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please play fair. wadester16 | Talk→ 16:53, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Volumetric Render of a Mouse Skull

Reason

This image is an outstanding example of shear warp volume rendering. I was certain that it would be featured when I clicked on the image, but no such tag came up. The image is very informative and it displays the mouse skull in a clear and intuitive fashion.

Articles this image appears in

Volume rendering, Skull (just added by Wadester16)

Creator

User:Lackas

• Support as nominator --Stotan (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support I often think looking at skulls and imagining the creature underneath is a rather unintuitive task, this gif makes it really easy. I agree that its amazing this hasn't been featured already. --Tobyw87 (talk) 23:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. -- Amazing, I agree. But the caption is not good enough for us to understand what's going on. For example, what are the ghost-like artifacts around the skull? Also, the animation is too fast -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is done from a CT scan. Soft tissues show up on X-rays as that sort of ghostly afterimage - you're pretty much seeing the rat's body as an afterimage, which, if anything, makes it more useful. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obvious error in caption: thank you very much for neutralizing the alien invaders. The world is grateful. Durova^Charge! 00:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment why isn't the image in a mouse article? ZooFari 03:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and agree that this image would fit in in plenty of other articles. Brilliant image. J Milburn (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can this be slowed down a bit? It goes too fast for me to really appreciate. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can we get an identification of the species? That would significantly increase the value of the image. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would that increase it's value significantly? I don't imagine mouse skulls vary to a huge degree per species. And how often does someone need to look up what a particular species' skull looks like? Kaldari (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost certainly Rattus norvegicus. That's your standard medical lab rat, and the proportions are right. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You mean Mus musculus, right? Narayanese (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This image could go in Skull#Other skulls. ZooFari 18:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just added it to skull as the lead image. The article is too human-biased anyway, and this is a great image to introduce someone to the concept. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Informative, clear, and fairly high rez for an animated gif. The only downside is a distracting orbiting speck around the height where the upper and lower teeth/incisors meet.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 00:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellent. Synergy 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support GerardM (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:VolRenderShearWarp.gif ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 14:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicked World

Reason

Of high artistic merit, and highly encyclopedic for Gilbert, the play, and the history of a theatre that largely came to be a success because of Gilbert's plays.

Articles this image appears in

Haymarket Theatre, W. S. Gilbert, The Wicked World

Creator

David Henry Friston

• Support as nominator --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 21:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For more information on context, see The Wicked World
• Support per nom. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 20:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, although I'm a tad disappointed with the resolution. Otherwise, It's very neat and detailed. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 01:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews, please. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: what the nominator said. Maedin\^talk 20:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Wicked World - Illustrated London News, Feb 8 1873.PNG ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 18:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republican costume by David

Reason

Encyclopedic engraving by Denon of a drawing by David for a costume for peoples' reprensentatives.

Minimal restoration: stains and dust removed, cropped/rotated, contrast enhanced. Chose to keep paper grain, not to bleach paper to white and not to remove all traces of darkening towards the edges.

Articles this image appears in

Jacques-Louis David, Dominique Vivant

Creator

drawing: Jacques-Louis David; engraving: Dominique Vivant, Baron de Denon / restored by Michel Vuijlsteke

• Support as nominator --Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support - It's very good, but the crop's a bit tight at the bottom. Recrop it so there's some space between the bottom of the f and the bottom of the image, and you have my vote. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Done! Atcher service, Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's all the problems sorted =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. Highly encyclopedic. Durova^Charge! 21:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More reviews, please. ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 04:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good resolution and nice restoration. Spencer^{T♦Nominate!} 23:45, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Le représentant du peuple François en fonction2.jpg MER-C 12:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Traumatic insemination

Reason

A stunning illustration: You can see the carapace cracking.

Articles this image appears in

Traumatic insemination, bedbug

Creator

Rickard Ignell of Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Note

Please notify Raul654 of the result of this, as uploader.

• Support as nominator (Edit1 is best) --Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• (As the one who get permission for the image) Support Raul654 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I wish the focus were on the point of insertion. de Bivort 17:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the difficulty of the image - the bedbugs are not going to stay still for you - I think that it's surprisingly good. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good heavens, we've sunk from bug porn to bug rape. Highly encyclopedic though. May I step on them? Durova^Charge! 21:15, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Durova. ZooFari 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Impressive stuff. Adds great value. |→ Spaully^₪† 23:58, 2 April 2009 (GMT)
• Comment You know, I've just been looking closer, and noticed there's some JPEG artefacting. It seems to be almost entirely in the background, but be aware. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support educational value is much more important to me that some background jpeg artifacts. -- m:drini 03:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support. Too bad about the focus, but there's not much that can be done about that. There is however a dust particle on the sensor or the mirror, just under the thorax of the male. Full support with bells if you remove that. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to me. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 15:42, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support for good EV and hard to capture. --Muhammad(talk) 18:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- the important part is in focus. I wonder if she's in pain? J Milburn (talk) 11:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not -- In the majority of examples of invertebrate nociception noted above, there seems to be little, if any, evidence that the animals' responses persist in anything akin to the manner described for mammals. As Eisemann et al. (1984) have described in a review of the "biological evidence" concerning pain in insects, "No example is known to us of an insect showing protective behavior towards injured parts, such as by limping after leg injury or declining to feed or mate because of general abdominal injuries. On the contrary, our experience has been that insects will continue with normal activities even after severe injury or removal of body parts." Raul654 (talk) 16:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Edit1: Definitely worthy. Maedin\^talk 20:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which do you prefer? Original or edit? ~ ωαdεstεr16_«talk^stalk» 22:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:Traumatic insemination 1 edit1.jpg MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Atzerodt

Reason

One of the conspirators in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. Restored version of File:George Atzerodt.jpg

Articles this image appears in

George Atzerodt

Creator

Alexander Gardner

• Support as nominator --Durova^Charge! 00:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Very high encylopedic value, a compelling image. Shortcomings in quality are more than made up for by these. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I agree with Mostlyharmless. J Milburn (talk) 11:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good image, I particularly like the expression on his face. High EV. Cool3 (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For EV. Why are all the conspirators faces and poses alike? --Muhammad(talk) 12:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They wore heavy manacles that spaced their wrists at a certain distance. Durova^Charge! 02:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted File:George Atzerodt2.jpg MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sky lanterns

Reason

Although a little busy as a thumbnail, the larger version is captivating. It adds to the article because it's the only image in the article that shows the visual effect of a mass deployment of sky lanterns during a festival. the other images are of single lanterns. There is a blurry gentleman in the foreground but i think it enhances the image by providing some perspective. the lanterns themselves are in focus and the lighting is good for such a scene. note:There is an alternative version of this without the left side cropped off. I think the crop is tasteful, but if the other version is preferable, I'd be happy with either.

Articles this image appears in

Sky lantern

Creator

Takeaway

• Support as nominator -- - Lambajan 04:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I like the image, but the low resolution is really pushing it. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Really like the shot, but it's been overly downsampled (not just in size). It looks a bit noisy, but how noisy is hard to tell with the extensive artifacting. Would like to see a better quality version of this if the uploader is willing to provide one; a D80 produces better quality images than this. --jjron (talk) 16:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the uploader and he provided a higher resolution version. His comments on it: "The photo is a bit grainy as the Nikon D80 doesn't really perform very well in dark situations when using settings above 800 ISO. The smoke of all the lanterns going up in the air also contributes to what might look like grain." - Lambajan 14:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, had a look at the bigger version and a quick play to see what I could do, but sadly the quality is just not there for mine, just too noisy; looks like the camera can't really handle the ISO 1250. Doubt my camera wouldn't do any better I must say. Maybe worth a try at VPC? --jjron (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A fairly aggressive noise reduction and a black point adjustment worked pretty well imo, there isn't much fine detail to loose. Unfortunately cameras are at their weakest with dark areas and high isos though.

• Support Edit Not really a shot that could be made without high iso, the edit takes care of most of it. Noodle snacks (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediterranean house gecko

Reason

Best med house gecko quality available, shows morning basking techniques (despite being nocturnal)

Articles this image appears in

Mediterranean house gecko, House gecko

Creator

ZooFari

• Support as nominator --ZooFari 19:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Sharpness and EV is good but DOF is very shallow. --Muhammad(talk) 04:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Nice, but should really have been taken from an angle that shows the entire animal more completely and in focus. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not promoted MER-C 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas Lillium Flower Parts

Reason

A useful photographic illustration of many flower parts. The numbers allow it to be readable at thumbnail size.

Articles this image appears in

Lilium, Flower

Creator

Noodle snacks

• Support as nominator --Noodle snacks (talk) 00:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Good EV. Focus is good where required. --Muhammad(talk) 04:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, brilliantly encyclopedic and very attractive. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Needs NR on the background --Fir0002 08:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did it, though it was extremely minor. I had to zoom to a 3-400% to see it clearly. Noodle snacks (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Were you looking in the right place? It's not visible in the OOF lily, but (its still) quite strong in the shadow area. But I must say it shows up much more strongly on my new (Dell) monitor than my old one... I'll try do an edit later today unless you beat me to it --Fir0002 22:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Did it in the darker shadow sections, you may have to do the control-shift-R thing. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hmm still a fair bit there - ran it through another NR pass. Though to be honest I wouldn't have picked up on it but for this new Dell which I hadn't had a chance to calibrate properly - the gamma setting was bringing out too much shadow detail (I've done some rough calibration on it now which is better and I'll probably give it a Spyder calibration in a week or two)...--Fir0002 11:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can't see anything A/Bing them. Noodle snacks (talk) 12:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Outstanding image.--ragesoss (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Very good! A shame that a whole petal isn't shown in full focus but we can't have everything -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Great photo and very good encyclopaedic value. I bet this will turn up in homework round the world... |→ Spaully^₪† 12:50, 8 April 2009 (GMT)
• Support - Educational and visually appealing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Wonderful image. Synergy 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]